What's in a name? Well, for starters, heritage, prestige and, in the case of Rover, a loyal following whose unfettered obsession is only eclipsed by one Chinese automaker's pocketbook.Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. may have finally wriggled the Rover name from BMW AG's hands, in a deal that, according to the Birmingham Post in Great Britain, involves the Chinese automaker shelling out $21.7 million for the famed mark.
Why Shanghai Automotive and not the winning bidder of MG Rover's production equipment, Nanjing Automobile? Shanghai Auto had worked with Rover before it went 'pop' in early 2005 and owns the rights to the Rover 75, which it plans to put into production and have on sale in late 2007 or early 2008.
At this point in the game, we're not sure if we even care where the cars are built or what badge adorns the hood, we'd just like to see something tangible come out of the defunct automaker.
[Source: Automotive News]
Early Look: £1million Aston Martin One-77
Andrea Pininfarina killed in motorcycle accident
BMW owner tapes black car to white
Nissan confirms G37 Sedan, G37 Convertible and G37x Coupe
2009 Honda Ridgeline introduced early to internet
First Drive: HUMMER H3T
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy![In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/amg-s63-1280-11_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG [w/VIDEO]
Project Track Slut Update: Prepping for the big 
Second Drive: Porsche Boxster RS60 Spyder
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ross UK @ Aug 15th 2006 9:46AM
In reponse to "Do we care where it is made?" - Well yes and no. Unlike Nanjing, which has decided to do the bulk of its technical research in China with inexperienced engineers, SAIC has stuck rigidly to the company Ricardo to produce (or should that be reproduce) the 75 to european standards. Where it is manufacturered isn't really important.
Why Nanjing has decided to use inexperienced students and engineers to produce its cars instead of the Longbridge R&D staff, who are at the height of their careers and have the experience is beyond me. The only reason why the MGRover cars could never be developed properly was ALWAYS because of lack of money. Constant costing downs meant that the engineers were always limited on what they could do.
I have no doubt that given the right amount of cash, I guarantee these guys would be able to produce world class products.
I have grave doubts about Nanjing's approach - especially since I saw the latest crash test involving a Chery car. Chinese engineered cars are just too dangerous to be sold in Europe!
All World Automotive @ Aug 15th 2006 9:53AM
Some one needs to stop the Chinese. They are killing the United States main industry.
Automotive
The number one job producer in the country!
Jason @ Aug 15th 2006 10:10AM
I see someone doesn't get the idea of business. Go to school.
Corey W. @ Aug 15th 2006 10:33AM
"At this point in the game, we're not sure if we even care where the cars are built or what badge adorns the hood.."
Well, not sure about that... Although location is a moot point nowadays, it's like saying loyal Camaro owners not caring if the car is built by Honda or GM.
Vinny @ Aug 15th 2006 10:47AM
All World Auto... I thought Wal-Mart or the U.S. government were the highest job producers in the country.
I agree with Jason's comment too by the way.
Clarence @ Aug 15th 2006 10:56AM
The OVER logo fits totally. Rover was sort of an upper-quality middle-level car with lots of British charm. So much time has passed that no one will ever reclaim that. Now it is just a name.
jamie @ Aug 15th 2006 10:56AM
Is Queen Elizabeth listening? OMG, Britain has lost practically all of its domestic auto industry to foreigners.
Now, if you could dip into your enormous pocket book, together we could put Rover, Range Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, MG, the vaunted Mini, Bentley and your precious Rolls Royce back in British hands where it belongs. This current fiasco is a disgrace.
Lithous @ Aug 15th 2006 11:52AM
"I see someone doesn't get the idea of business. Go to school."
The problem is that business teaches how each entity called a corporation makes money. Business doesn't teach anything about moving all production to China (or where ever) and the negatives involved. Your taxes go up so that roads can still be maintained (or they just aren't maintained) because you have to pay some of the burden of those who lost their job. I know citizenship means nothing to most people these days and "proud American" is just meaningless phrase to most but there are circular dependencies of which your business schooling doesn't not tread. Business school's solution it to go global. Once you as an exec of a company decide to move jobs overseas your customer base shrinks (when you do it and the next guy and the next guy) so therefoe you have to sell to the world and *your* problems are over. The rest of America, not so lucky. And if the rest of America got motivated to do what you do then competition gets rough and you might be pushed out. Hmmm. Anyone realize Polaroid went bankrupt in the last few years? Now some holding company owns them. Just a recent falling apart of America. That I discoved only because I research companies from which I am think of purchasing goods.
The goal of business schooling is to motivate you to succeed in business. If they showed any negativety of the process then it could slow you down (you may think of the bad side of outsourcing) and the business school next door might not tell you down sides so we can't do that.
b
Here is a modern business education. Kiss ass for years to be promoted to head of manufacturing/production. Move it to China and reap the rewards. Get lots of cash for that out of the box move to China and save it for when some foreign entity buys you out. Look at Walmart. It used to be "Bring it home to America" when Sam Walton was alive. Then the greedy bastards that went to business school and had a "better" education than Walton (but could never in their life start from scratch and do what he did) took over the company and starting forcing the use of Chinese labor. Those who can build things from scratch and don't sell out. Those who can't look to China for making their profits from their slave labor. The days of Model-T havling the price of a car and doubling the assemblers salaries are done. It is too easy to go to China.
There you go. That will be only $2400 for the degree to be mailed upon receipt of funds.
Hey, I bet you could make great money selling secrets, are you going do that too? Just call it a business venture and like religious freedom you will get an automatic get out of jail free card because in a (selectively) capitalist society making money is more important than anything.
Howard Kerr @ Aug 15th 2006 4:51PM
MAYBE it's better to call your cars Rover rather than SACK (take Shanghai's initials and make a word out of them...) but at this point is there ANY meaning left to the Rover brand, for ANYONE on this planet?
And jamie, you are kidding, right? At one time a company called British Leyland owned most of the brands you suggest that the Queen of England should re-purchase. Aston, and Bentley/Rolls Royce were never part of BL but it did include such illustrious brands as Triumph, Riley, Wolseley, Morris, Austin, Leyland, and who knows what all else, in addition to the brands you name.
yumyum @ Aug 16th 2006 11:01AM
This is why the chinese must be stopped!
Oh Lord! What have they done to the 75. Utter disgrace!
http://www.bobaedream.co.kr/board/data/data_view.php?code=special&No=56333&page=1&select=&content=&r_no=44&search_gubun=&s_pagescale=&search_day=&Answer=1
Ross UK @ Oct 22nd 2006 5:19PM
In reponse to "Do we care where it is made?" - Well yes and no. Unlike Nanjing, which has decided to do the bulk of its technical research in China with inexperienced engineers, SAIC has stuck rigidly to the company Ricardo to produce (or should that be reproduce) the 75 to european standards. Where it is manufacturered isn't really important.
Why Nanjing has decided to use inexperienced students and engineers to produce its cars instead of the Longbridge R&D staff, who are at the height of their careers and have the experience is beyond me. The only reason why the MGRover cars could never be developed properly was ALWAYS because of lack of money. Constant costing downs meant that the engineers were always limited on what they could do.
I have no doubt that given the right amount of cash, I guarantee these guys would be able to produce world class products.
I have grave doubts about Nanjing's approach - especially since I saw the latest crash test involving a Chery car. Chinese engineered cars are just too dangerous to be sold in Europe!